Skip to comments.UNANIMOUS! Supreme Court Rules Obama’s ‘Recess’ Appointments UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Posted on 06/26/2014 9:25:49 AM PDT by Marie
Two and one-half years ago in 2012, Obama tried to slip-in appointments to the National Labor Relations Board without the constitutionally required Senate approval, claiming he had the right to do so because the Senate was in recess. Theres only one problem.
The Senate was not in formal recess when Obama made the dictatorial appointments.
Now the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in a unanimous 9-0 decision that Obama doesnt get to define when the U.S. Senate is in recess, the Senate does.
This is the first time in U.S. history that the Constitutions recess appointment clause has been challenged, as no former president has attempted to usurp powers as wannabe dictator, Barack Obama.
The respondent in the case was Noel Canning, a Pepsi-Cola distributor, who claimed that the NLRB lacked a quorum because three of the five Board members had been invalidly appointed by Obama. Canning was being forced by the NLRB into entering a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union.
Reid’s response was predictable. Go nuclear for all appointments....
The Hero of Benghazi seems to be having some difficulty.
Better put some ice on that Odungo.
Expect the Dems to somehow create extended recesses under the next GOP Prez.
PLENTY of time to get THIS out .... UNSPUN.
So when does his trial start? Or is the constitution not supposed to protect us from tyrants?
That man is such a jerk.
I think you mean the reverse of that, absence of a recess results in absence of power to recess appoint.
The DEMs started the practice of phony Congressional session, so the books look as though Congress is in session (not in recess) when it is actually not in session. They'd keep two people in DC, one to sit in the high chair, and one to open and close the session. I think the average time of being in session was about 30 seconds.
SCOTUS punted this too. The president and Congress have been allowing unconstitutional recess appointments for over a hundred years. SCOTUS says, well, if it's been going on that long, "poof," it's constitutional.
Does this mean those he illegally “appointed” will be removed? I can’t wait to see that not happen.
We have *got* to take everything this election. Unless we get back the Senate, they’ll never impeach.
On the other hand... Uncle Joe...
9-0 on ANYTHING is pretty astonishing!
If he chooses wrong on something that gets ruled 9-0, then we cannot trust his judgment on what a “smidgen” of corruption is.
Obama could take a cue from President Lincoln or President Jackson and just IGNORE the US Supreme Court ... :-) ...
Something tells me even the libs on the court are starting to fear a dictatorship and the inevitable response from the People.
I think it takes 2/3 of the senate to remove the hero of Benghazi.
But the majority would be nice if just to tell Reid to sit down.
They’re contemplating what might happen with this power if a republican is elected president in a few years.
I would assume that they all have to go.See if the republicans force the issue or not,may be Boner will want to cry about it first.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Well, there was no law to break. )Prosecutor here). That is a term of art for committing a crime. In fact, every single POTUS who did it before was just as “guilty”.
Good ruling by POTUS as each Branch should be able to decide what it “does”. The future problem here is that SCOTUS will likely take the same position on Executive Orders.
But, good decision though meaningless since filibusters don’t apply to appointments. This was an archaic Constitutional Rule from when Congress only met a few months out of the year.
More ammo for Boehner’s lawsuit
No. And again, “illegal” means crime. This was not a crime or every POTUS still alive could be prosecuted.
In fact, since there is no filibuster, he could simply re-appoint them. All this does is permit each Party to gum up the works in the future if they want to by holding pro-forma sessions. But, as I said above, with no filibuster this ruling is meaningless.
I think they are watching the news like everyone else and fear they may be losing the consent of the governed. This IRS scandal is a huge problem for the commies as they could always count on support from politically dumbed down youth. However, even young skulls full of mush know emails don't disappear from hard drive crashes. Even the liberal deceived youth now KNOW they are being lied to.
Nope. Becasue after winning this in court at the lower levels the GOPe caved in and agreed to approve all of these appointments. They are now sitting in their chairs pushing the socialist union agenda and will for the foreseeable future. The only issue is whether the NLRB's acts before congress went ahead a approved them are valid.
Oooooh! So, who would actually do anything about it?
And now surely the White House will comply with the law. Mr Holder will ensure it.
And just exactly what does this little piece of paper mean? Oh I know what folks want it to mean but I look at the facts as they are. The court issues a ruling....are those people gone from the NLRB? NO! In fact they still sit there making decisions. And what of the decisions that have already been made? Are they still in effect? YES! And until they are successfully challenged in court they remain in effect. And by the time the case gets to SCOTUS who knows how it will be decided. So tell me now exactly what is the good news? What has changed?
Obviously, the Justices need to take a refresher course in Constitutional law taught by the great constitutional scholar, Barak Obama. (/sarcasm) Wasn’t that the line of hooey that we were being feed back in 2008? I think that some graduates of the University of Chicago Law School should be given tuition refunds.
9 people to audit by the IRS.
Takes his pen away, ONCE AND FOR ALL!
It will still just be all theater, but bloody.
All 0bama has to do is write an executive order disbanding the SCOTUS ...
The majority opinion was actually kinda bad.
5 AJs + CJ ruled that “longstanding arrangements between the political branches” and/or “the ballot box” were valid ways to determine constitutionality.
Scalia, in his concurrence, called this “the adverse possession theory of constitutionality”.
The literal text of the constitution could only carry 3 votes.
does that mean that those appointments are null and void, and the decisions made by those people are vacated?
Harry Reid and his gang will cover for him nothing is going to happen!
Since his recess appointment were unlawful, I hope this means that anyone holding office who was appointed in this manner, is now automatically unemployed.
Are you trying to tell us that a guy who couldn’t advance his success in the law anymore than becoming a lecturer in
Constitutional law, violated it?
WOW! An honest decision by all 9 judges!
*He broke the law. Give him a fair trial and a fair sentence to be served in a federal prison. *
Orange overalls in his future?
The trial as to whether the president broke the law or not has concluded 9-0 he is GUILTY of a high crime, not a misdemeanor.
Impeachment should be an automatic process at this point.
This marks the twelfth time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama Administrations calls for greater federal executive power.
Great! When do they perp-walk his hiness and corrupt band of thugs out of our whitehouse?
The decision was 9-0 that these particular appointments were invalid, but the grounds of the decision were WAY narrower than the lower court.
The D.C. Circuit had held that the recess appointment power can only be used during the recess between one Congress and another (not during recesses in the middle of one Congress), and only if the vacancy happens during that recess. That decision would have, in effect, ended the recess appointment power entirely. (It also meant that all of the recess appointments made during the past 100 years were unconstitutional.)
Today's decision just says that the President can't make a recess appointment at a time when the Senate says it's in session. It strikes down these appointments, but leaves Obama and future presidents much more room for making recess appointments than the lower court would have.
You do know that Obama will just double down on stupid now
how can this be, wasn’t Obama a teacher of the Constitution at the college level?
That the Supreme Court found some governmental action to be unconstitutional is not the same thing as saying that someone is guilty of a crime. Or do you think that every member of Congress who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act belongs in prison?
Many people think that WWII got us out of the Depression. Others point to Supreme Court rulings against some of FDR’s New Deal policies and a Republican Congress before we got involved in the war to be key. Everything else obama has done has been eerily similar to FDR (see the long article in my tagline). Hopefully the end will be similar as well, with this ruling as a start.
.... So ... When did Obama ever care if he adheres to the Constitution. And what happens next ....do the appointees stay?